On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 06:57:24PM +0200, David Landgren wrote: > >My understanding is that inclusion on the Phalanx 100 doesn't constitute > >any sort of endorsement of the modules. It's hopefully a statement that > >the module is widely used, but not a judgment on whether it ought to be. > > They are not endorsed, but they are considered "important".
Maybe what is needed is an explaination on (or near) the list itself about how the list was made. The FAQ is annoyingly coy on the subject. Also it would be nice if the reasoning was put next to each module. There are some head scratchers in there, like Class::WhiteHole, unless you realize its part of a dependency chain. It seems like the reasoning can be broken down into "important module", "dependency of an important module" or "widely used dependency". -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern Don't try the paranormal until you know what's normal. -- "Lords and Ladies" by Terry Prachett
